Loving v. Straughn

• Decision Date: 21 November 2019
• Docket Number: No. CV-19-494,CV-19-494
• Citation: 588 S.W.3d 340,2019 Ark. 347
• Parties: Edward E. LOVING, Appellant v. William STRAUGHN, Warden, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellee
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

2019 Ark. 347

588 S.W.3d 340

Edward E. LOVING, Appellant

v.William STRAUGHN, Warden, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellee

No. CV-19-494

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered: November 21, 2019

Edward E. Loving, pro se appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Rachel Kemp, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

COURTNEY RAE HUDSON, Associate Justice

Appellant Edward E. Loving appeals from the denial and dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, a remedy allowed pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-101 (Repl. 2016). Because Loving stated no ground on which the writ could issue under Arkansas law, we affirm the circuit court's order.¹

In 2007, Loving entered a plea of guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced as a habitual offender to 600 months' imprisonment. He filed the petition for writ of habeas corpus in the county where he is incarcerated in 2019. Gardner v. Kelley , 2018 Ark. 300, 2018 WL 5076670 (Any petition for writ of habeas corpus to effect the release of a prisoner is properly addressed to the circuit court in which the prisoner is held in custody, unless the petition is filed pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001 seeking scientific testing of evidence.); see also Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201 (Repl. 2016) (providing that petitions under Act 1780 are brought in the court in which the petitioner's convictions were entered).

A writ of habeas corpus is proper when a judgment of conviction is invalid on its face or when a trial court lacks jurisdiction over the cause. Stephenson v. Kelley , 2018 Ark. 143, 544 S.W.3d 44. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy. Baker v. Norris , 369 Ark. 405, 255 S.W.3d 466 (2007). When the trial court has personal jurisdiction over the appellant and also has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court has authority to render the judgment. Johnson v. State , 298 Ark. 479, 769 S.W.2d 3 (1989).

Under our statute, a petitioner for the writ who does not allege his actual innocence and proceed under Act 1780 of 2001 must plead either the facial invalidity of the judgment or the lack of jurisdiction by the trial court and make a showing by affidavit or other evidence of probable cause to believe that he is being illegally detained. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1) (Repl. 2016). Unless the petitioner can show that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment order was invalid on its face, there is no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. Proctor v. Kelley , 2018 Ark. 382, 562 S.W.3d 837.

A circuit court's decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus will be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous. Hobbs v. Gordon , 2014 Ark. 225, 434 S.W.3d 364. A decision is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id.

Loving's petition consisted of approximately one hundred pages of conclusory statements pertaining to Loving's interpretation of Arkansas law and the scope of an action for the writ of habeas corpus. He argues on appeal that the circuit court erred when it failed to issue the writ on the following grounds: (1) he is a "natural person" and first-degree murder is "special...